Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 Next
Comments 49101 to 49150:
-
Tom Curtis at 13:08 PM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard C @9 quotes various people as follows:
'Nuccitelli - "heat is accumulating in the Earth's climate system due to the increased greenhouse effect"
Skeptical Science blog (Nuccitelli et al, 2012) - "90% of global warming goes into the ocean"
Schmittner - "Most heat trapped by carbon dioxide and other gases added to the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans"
Rahmstorf - ”heat penetrates faster into the oceans in a warmer climate” '
He later claims,
"Note that the process as described above is not the GHG insulation effect of solar-sourced ocean energy accumulation proposed by Peter Minnett"
And later, @23,
"They're taking as given that a majir atm => ocean heat transfer exists."
Now, the crucial point here is that none of the people Richard quotes says anything about an atmosphere to ocean heat transfer. The purported theory that Richard finds so implausible is completely of his own invention. The fact of the matter is that because he does not understand the theory that he criticizes, he reaches for a simplistic theory that is within his grasp - and then assumes (not shows, but assumes) it is wrong. But the simplistic theory he reaches for was not expounded by those he criticizes. Until Richard acknowledges this simple fact, discussion with him is futile. We can defend the correct account of things as much as we like, but he will not acknowledge its relevance, for it is not a defence of his strawman.
So, I intend to discuss nothing with Richard until he proves from their own words that they proposed a theory of major transfer of heat from the atmosphere to the ocean. I suggest that others do likewise.
Of course, we know already that he cannot prove anysuch thing, or else he would not have used such inconclusive quotes to start his threadjack.
-
Richard C (NZ) at 13:08 PM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Let's recap the quotes:-Nuccitelli - "heat is accumulating in the Earth's climate system due to the increased greenhouse effect"
Skeptical Science blog (Nuccitelli et al, 2012) - "90% of global warming goes into the ocean"
Schmittner - "Most heat trapped by carbon dioxide and other gases added to the atmosphere is absorbed by the oceans"
Rahmstorf - ”heat penetrates faster into the oceans in a warmer climate”These quotes imply a process whereby heat is moving "from colder places to warmer places against thermal gradients" - do they not?
On global acverage, the difference is about 3 C (ocean warmer than atm) but again I'm curious as to the details of the Schmittner/Rahmstorf process (Nuccitelli may actually subscibe to the Minnett insulation effect as Rob Painting does but he's said nothing yet specifically) because there will be times when the near-surface atm is actually warmer than the adjacent ocean surface enabling an atm => ocean thermal gradient.
It is therefore imperitive that the details of the Schmittner/Rahmstorf process at least are determined and 6 question-by-question responses obtained so that we can then know for sure who subscribes to what.
I assume from your comment that you subscribe to the Minnett insulation effect in which case your process as described is not the subject of my questions as I've already made clear more than once now in this thread.
-
Rob Painting at 13:01 PM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard C - aside from the solar radiation trend going in the wrong direction, the observed warming of the ocean is too smooth, both at the surface and at depth, to arise from natural variation such as an increase in solar radiation (which isn't happening anyway). See the SkS post linked to @ 31.
As noted by Jose X, solar radiation only heats part of the Earth's surface at a time whereas the greenhouse gas effect operates day and night.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:50 PM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
So, to try to boil your questions down to something digestible... Are you claiming that there is no evidence that GHE can cause the ocean to warm?
-
Richard C (NZ) at 12:44 PM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
As I made plain up-thread, I'm not disputing the Minnett insulation effect that you subscibe to in my series of questions because that topic has been dealt with elsewhere (but without resolution). At this point in time it is my understanding that the IPCC has not ratified that insulation effect as explaining any posited anthropogenically derived ocean heat uptake - what is the situation on that?I'm questioning the process that I infer from quotes by Nuccitelli, Schmittner and Rahmstorf. That process is clearly different to the insulation effect posited by Peter Minnett so obviously a different set of questions arise that I'm seeking answers to, 6 question-by-question responses would suffice.Re your solar argument, there are a number of major problems with it but I'm guided by the following on the topic of this post where solar-centric points were raised up-thread:-"Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed links; agreed on removing the off-topic items to the linked threads."
-
Composer99 at 12:34 PM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Eric... just wanted to let you know I've been by your site a couple of times today and intend to listen through the short course slowly but surely.
-
Rob Painting at 12:19 PM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Rob Honeycutt @ 27 - Maybe they think magic is causing sea level to rise? Here's what I posted on The Oregonian thread where Dana Nuccitelli's letter appeared:
Any suggestion that the ocean has not warmed is contradicted by the continuing rise of sea level. There are two main contributors to sea level; thermal expansion of seawater due to warming and meltwater from land-based ice - principally the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The long-term trend is partially obscured by the exchange of water between ocean and land due to evaporation and subsequent precipitation (rainfall & snow), but it shows continued sea level rise. Here is the satellite period of sea level observations from AVISO.
In their 2012 paper Douglass & Knox claim there has been no ocean warming since 2002. If so the sea level trend should have plummeted dramatically since then, because thermal expansion is the largest contributor to sea level rise. But if readers check the AVISO satellite-based observations they will note that since 2002 sea level has continued to rise at a rate which suggests a great deal of ocean warming. The observations completely contradict their claim.
-
Richard C (NZ) at 12:18 PM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
>"...reject 150 years of basic radiative physics, as Richard seems prepared to do"
As for my reply to Jose, We've yet to determine what the Nuccitelli/Schmittner/Rahmstorf process actually is (my inferrance is that it is a sensible heat process hence Question 3) and whether it includes DLR and their response to question 3) before debating the respective merits of the radiative cases.
But meantime, if you refer to my question 3 you will see that I defer to the last 40 years of spectroscopic radiation/water studies in the event that the process in question includes DLR (the quotes say nothing of that specifically so I don't know yet):-
"I note a number of spectroscopic radiation/water studies e.g. Hale and Querry 1973 (1989 citations to date), indicate that such a process is highly unlikely in view of only about 10 microns penetration in the IR-C range of GHG emittance."
Note that I ask for studies of radiation/SEA water interaction if available in Question 3) because I've only seen a compendium of radiation/water studies.
-
Rob Painting at 12:09 PM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Michael Sweet - Richard C is actually correct about the GISS climate model - it does mix heat into the ocean more efficiently than the observations suggest. A number of the models do. Some peer-reviewed references are provided in this SkS post: Observed warming of the Ocean and Atmosphere is Incompatible with Natural Variation - second to last heading.
-
michael sweet at 12:02 PM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard,
You suggest in your question 1:
" GHG energy entrapment and moved to the ocean (high specific heat) against the predominant thermal gradient"
You obviously do not understand the basic greenhouse effect and how it warms the ocean. Everyone knows that energy does not move from colder places to warmer places against thermal gradients. You look foolish when you suggest that scientists say such nonsense.
The warm sun shines on the ocean and warms it. The warm ocean transfers heat into the colder atmosphere. The atmosphere transfers heat into cold space. When greenhouse gasses accumulate in the atmosphere it warms the atmosphere because heat goes more slowly into space. According to the laws of thermodynamics, basic high school physics, the now warmer atmosphere absorbs less heat from the ocean. Since the sun continues to deliver heat to the ocean and the ocean no longer loses as much heat to the atmosphere, the ocean warms. The energy to warm the ocean comes from the hot sun. It is trapped by greenhouse gases.
Differrent models have the heat distributed differently once it is in the ocean. It is posssible to match observations of surface temperatures with high aerosol reflection of heat and low ocean heat uptake or low aerosol reflection and high ocean uptake. Scientists are collecting data to determine which is correct. If it turns out that aerosols have been reflecting lots of heat we are in even more trouble. Please provide a citation for your wild claim that the GISS model overestimates heat uptake into the ocean.
Your questions are based on your basic misunderstandings. Ask one question at a time and you will be able to resolve your issues. Do not move on until your first misunderstanding is corrected. First you must understand the basic greenhouse effect.
-
Rob Painting at 12:02 PM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard C - Observed warming of the subsurface ocean is fully in accord with mainstream scientific understanding. The oceans are predominately warmed by sunlight entering the upper layers. Increase the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and more heat (longwave) radiation is directed back at the sea surface. This lowers the thermal gradient in the thin cool-skin layer, and therefore slows the loss of heat from the typically warmer ocean to the cooler atmosphere above. The sum effect is that the oceans get warmer because more of the sun's energy is being trapped there. In a sense it is similar to how greenhouse gases warm the atmosphere - by slowing the loss of heat out to space. See this SkS post: How Increasing Carbon Dioxide Heats the Ocean.
Over the last 3 decades solar radiation has seen an overall decline.
If solar output was exerting a controlling influence on ocean heat uptake we should have seen a decline in ocean heating. Instead what we see is that not only has ocean warming continued, but the last 16 years have warmed at a greater rate than the preceding 16 years. This is not that unexpected given that fossil fuel emissions have sharply increased in the last decade. But what it also suggests is that Earth's global energy imbalance has grown - contrary to a lot of discussion floating around on the internet.
There is no conflict between the ocean heating observed in Levitus (2012) and Nuccitelli (2012) and the greenhouse gas forcing by which the oceans are warmed.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 12:01 PM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
uknowispeaksense... And what's fascinating is how completely unaware they are of it.
-
Richard C (NZ) at 12:00 PM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
>"...maybe Richard is not realizing that DLR (photon energy) also goes into the oceans, primarily the skin layer I'd imagine"
See my Question 3) Jose. We've yet to determine what the Nuccitelli/Schmittner/Rahmstorf process actually is and whether it includes DLR and their response to question 3) before debating the respective merits of the radiative cases.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 11:48 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
So, I'm curious if Gordon Fulks, Robert Knox and David Douglass also ready to reject 150 years of basic radiative physics, as Richard seems prepared to do.
-
Jose_X at 11:47 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
More could have been said on the cherry-picking: The "skeptics" did not just cherry-pick in looking at the atmosphere and not at the oceans. They also did in starting with 1998. If we start with 1997 or 1996 or further back (ie, 17 years, 18, etc, or whatever the new number), then we see more warming towards the present. A non-cherry-picked standard entity might look at natural decades. 2000s were warmer clearly than 1990s .. than 1980s, etc. It's only if you start in a particular year that you get the only mild atmosphere warming.
An analogy: If we try to improve our golf, chances are that our best score won't be our current game, but instead will be a game not too long ago. That doesn't mean we aren't improving, generally. We are as seen in our running average over say the last 10 or 50 games. The odds are high that the best point won't be the last one, so if we are foolish, we will frequently believe that we stopped improving rather than recognizing that there are many variables and reasons why our best game of all time won't be our current one even as out average steadily improves (maybe we got a bad night's sleep or were more distracted with something else on a given day).
And yes, as goes the cherry-pick mentioned in the article, we should average the oceans and the atmosphere weighted with respective masses and not just look at one and ignore the other. If two people throw darts at each other, to know who is hitting the other more, you want to look at the total darts on each body and not just the total darts on each neck. I might only get you twice in the neck vs the 3 stabs I took from you, but I might be outscoring 20 to 10 across our whole bodies. We have to average across the entire planet to know the effect the sun is having from increased insulation of CO2. -
Jose_X at 11:28 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
[..let me clarify.. cont.. did not mention that convection in the house also and primarily keeps the objects inside the house at a similar temp.]
-
uknowispeaksense at 11:25 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
WUWT, own-goaling all the way.
-
Jose_X at 11:19 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Rob, Dana, Richard, maybe Richard is not realizing that DLR (photon energy) also goes into the oceans, primarily the skin layer I'd imagine. Some of that energy transfer later results in evaporation, some leads to convection into the deeper ocean, and some radiates at least back into the atmosphere. If this is all correct, then thermodynamic analysis has to include DLR analysis and not just convection/conduction at the atmosphere/ocean boundary. [DLR stuff is covered decently in SoD as stated above already]
Richard, there is no magic. There are more photons bouncing around and keeping the average temperature higher near the earth's surface than there would be if all the original photons leaving the earth had simply left into space as happens basically on the moon. Inject heat on a continual basis partly towards the center of an oven (via grill), sweater (via human body), house (via radiator), planet (via sun bypassing gases exterior of planet), and the insulatative effect of the outer shell will lead to a warming effect and higher average temp inside in all of these cases vs if there was no insulatative effect. At any given point in time, the interiors have not just the energy added within the last second or so, but a fraction of the energy added minutes back and even hours or days or years back. This is why, for example, it takes a while to heat an oven. You have to accumulate energy over many seconds, and then why cooling after the energy source is removed also takes a while. Temperature is just an average of concentration of energy. If we had perfect insulation and kept adding energy at a slow rate, the temp would approach infinity. As for the sun/earth case, the sun is basically "off" half the time. We can liken this to a well insulated house that has the heater turned on only half the time (or even 1% of the time). When off, the temp drops only a little. This small loss (because much of the energy "headed out" must take a longer path throughout the house bouncing around objects via "blackbody radiation" and to and fro warm walls that pass energy through them via conduction only very slowly) is quickly made up in a short time by a hot heater (hot sun). If the insulation is better, the loss during the time the heater is off will be even less and then the heater will add more heat raising the temp until equilibrium is reached at a higher temp, that higher gradient between the new inside temp and outside temp then drives more heat out of the house faster until it matches what the part-time radiator was adding (remember that in many scenarios the rate of heat flow is proportional to the difference in temp). Improve the insulation further and the equilibrium temp will rise again. That is what CO2 does to the planet (which has any given side being heated part-time by the very hot sun). Add more insulation and the equilibrium temp will rise. Note that the oceans slow turnover and very large mass means the equilibrium temp in the atmosphere may not be reached for a while even when CO2 additions stop. [let me clarify, stronger insulation means the constant that is proportional to the diff in temp becomes smaller, meaning that a greater diff in temp is required to achieve the same prior total rate.. As an analogy, if I hold on to photons leaving my body a little better, then you have to fire more photons (aka, higher temp) in order for me to allow the same number as before to escape. Until this new number is reached, there will be more energy coming in than going out. Adding CO2 means that the atmosphere catches more photons leaving and so a higher temp is needed in order to again balance the large number of photons arriving from the sun.]
Hopefully, this explanation helps those of us who are not learned physicists/scientists in the subject. Sorry for the length. -
Richard C (NZ) at 11:05 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
>"You mean besides the fact that it's been measured?"
OHC has been measured/calculated but the relevant question is 2)a) and that is wrt major (by implication) atm => ocean heat transfer across the interface. That is not tha same as ARGO measuremets of ocean surface and below say.
>"Your question seems akin to asking how we know gravity exists."
I have 6 questions, 1), 2)a), 2)b), 3), 4)a), and 4)b). It is the answers to those one-by-one that myself and a number of others a looking for given the quotes in my initial comment from prominant climate scientists and those associated with the Nuccitelli et al 2012 paper and SkS that convey a distinct impression that the heat transfer process in question is a verified phenomenon. Gordon Fulks, Robert Knox and David Douglass have the link to this thread for example so now is an opportune time to state your case in detail with citations in response to each question individually.
If your case is rock solid there should be no problem responding to those 6 questions.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 09:21 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Dana said... "Your question seems akin to asking how we know gravity exists."
Um, Richard, this is pretty much the point I was making which you responded to so irrationally. This all sounds like you're questioning basic physics.
If that's what you're doing, then let's be upfront about it.
-
dana1981 at 08:59 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
"They're taking as given that a majir atm => ocean heat transfer exists. I'm asking for the documented basis for it as per the question list."
You mean besides the fact that it's been measured? Your question seems akin to asking how we know gravity exists.
-
Richard C (NZ) at 08:27 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
>"Dana & Schmittner aren't proposing any ocean heat transfer process"
Exactly. They're taking as given that a majir atm => ocean heat transfer exists. I'm asking for the documented basis for it as per the question list.
>"Your Rahmstorf quote does not appear to be on topic for this particular post."
(-snip-)
Moderator Response: [DB] Off-topic snipped. -
Richard C (NZ) at 08:19 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Rob Honeycutt at 07:14 AM>"Richard... Correct me if I'm wrong..."
I'm questioning EXACTLY what the questions ask, not what you think I'm questioning.
Moderator Response: [DB] Please cease being obtuse and clarify your question appropriately. -
Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard C (NZ) - Stockwell and "solar accumulation theory" are off-topic on this thread, as it is discussing the interpretation of ocean heat content, not claims against climate based on thermodynamics.
I would recommend taking any such discussion to Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming, and in particular to Tom Curtis's dissection of Stockwells errors.
Moderator Response: [DB] Fixed links; agreed on removing the off-topic items to the linked threads. -
Composer99 at 08:03 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard C:
Dana & Schmittner aren't proposing any ocean heat transfer process, merely correcting mistaken claims about empirically-observed phenomena. Your Rahmstorf quote does not appear to be on topic for this particular post.
So as far as I can see the trap you are falling into is (2) - running afoul of the First Law of Thermodynamics.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:14 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard... Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds to me like you're just questioning the thermodynamics behind the greenhouse effect.
-
Richard C (NZ) at 06:51 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
>"...the only explanation which adds up (har!) is the energy accumulating in the Earth system due to the GHG-caused radiative imbalance at top-of-atmosphere"
Solar accumulation theory by the oceanic heat sink is another explanation. See Dr David Stockwell's documentation of it.
>"As far as I am aware, the effect of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases - even on the oceans - is that it slows down energy transfer out of the system."
You're subscribing to the Minnett solar accumulation - GHG isulation effect. As I've noted, that is not the subject of my questions. I'm questioning the Nuccitelli/Schmittner/Rahmstorf GHG => ocean heat transfer process.
-
Richard C (NZ) at 06:41 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
>"Richard - we have been over this many times before on other blogs"
We have been over the Minnett solar accumulation - GHG insulation efffect. We have not been over the Nuccitelli/Schmittner/Rahmstorf GHG => ocean heat transfer process. They are quite different, the latter rather more radical (going against the prevailing thermal gradient) and taking precedence lately hence my questioning of it.
I note Stefan Rahmstorf said the same as in my 2013 quote in the 2010 BBC documentary 'Earth Under Water". I'm curioius as to why that process is talked about as scientific fact when there's a paucity of documentation for it.
-
Richard C (NZ) at 06:26 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
My response at The Oregonian,
Moderator Response: [RH] hot linked url. -
Martin Lack at 05:50 AM on 6 February 2013We're coming out of the Little Ice Age
"The activity of the sun can be assessed by looking at proxies... One of these is the formation of the radioactive isotope Carbon-14 in the atmosphere... By measuring carbon-14 in tree rings... we can estimate how active the sun was at the time."
Can you please clarify if so-called skeptics do this? If they rely on proxy data to establish history of solar activity, how can they reject it (proxy data) for temperature?
-
Jonas at 04:20 AM on 6 February 2013Icy contenders weigh in
I donated to http://darksnowproject.org/ even before the research article on the importance weighting between Greenland and Antarctica melting became known: it's important to know if humanity can buy some time by reducing industrial soot and combatting wildfires more fiercly.
-
Daniel Bailey at 04:01 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
The most concise response to that, KR, is
"All The Way"
-
New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Considering the title of the latest paper,
Conspiracist ideation in the blogosphere in response to research on conspiracist ideation
I would have to say that the current response in the denial blogosphere is simply recursive. I wonder how deep, how many iterations, they are going to go?
-
New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
hank_ - I've read the new Lewandowsky, Cook, et al paper (pre-copy edited), I've looked over the comments at WUWT, and I have to say that the reaction to the new paper only supports the conclusions, that:
The overall pattern of the blogosphere's response to LOG12 illustrates the possible role of conspiracist ideation in the rejection of science...
(Emphasis added)
They just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. Rather astounding, actually, in terms of the lack of self-perception displayed in stacked conspiracy theorization, claims of persecution, and fact-free claims that their critics somehow Must Be Wrong.
The denialists are incredibly in need of a good mirror. But they would likely refuse to look at it, or claim that the image on it was painted by the Illuminati...
-
Eric Grimsrud at 03:24 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Hank, I would like to weigh in at WUWT as you suggest, but Watts has a long list of professional scientists who are now blocked out of his SHOW and I am on it. As my story reveals (see it at ericgrmsrud.wordpress,com, November archives), Mr. Watts has moved way beyond any pretense of discussing real science. If he lets you in, please tell him that quickly before he kicks you our also. Eric
-
Bob Loblaw at 03:23 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
It's really hard to avoid going off the rails when you have a one-track mind...
-
Daniel Bailey at 03:14 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
They are all welcome to take their concerns directly to the source: Stephan has a post up on the paper on his blog, here:
http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lewandowskyRecFury.html
Being civilized people interested in getting the science right, I'm sure that will be their next step...
...any day now. Aannnyyy day... (-whistles, aimlessly-)
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:59 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Went over and read the comments. Lots of complaining and ad hom (starting with Tony's opening sentence) but I don't see that anyone there has yet made a substantive statement. It's more like the Keystone Cops all running around bumping into each other.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:48 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Hank... They go off the rails regardless of what we or anyone else says. Not quite sure they were ever on the rails in the first place.
-
hank_ at 02:35 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
Just a heads-up guys; SKS is being crucified over at WUWT (and other blogs) regarding Lewandowski and Cook's new paper(?). You may want to get out in front of this one before it goes off the rails!
H
Response: [JC] Actually Hank, what WUWT is doing is repeating all the same conspiracy theories we outline in our Recursive Fury paper. WUWT is proof of concept. I suggest reading our paper, then reread the WUWT post to gain a keener insight into the mindset over there. -
Eric Grimsrud at 02:20 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
For any party interested in this topic, I will call attention here to a "short course" on climate change that I have also created on my website, ericgrimsrud.com. It contains numerous power point slides along with narration. It is the result of numerous presentations I have given to various university and lay public organizations in Montana and the Northwest. It is presently in a first draft form to be continuously fine-tuned. Please provide feedback, if you wish, to ericgrimsrud@gmail.com. Thanks
-
johnenglander at 01:15 AM on 6 February 2013New Slideshow on Myth Debunking for Educators and Science Communicators
This is great. I wholeheartedly agree. More facts and intelligent points are not going to make the difference. We have enough information about climate change. That was the basis of my new book, HIGH TIDE ON MAIN STREET. I use a simple case about sea level rise, based on solid geologic history to get people's attention, to explain unambiguously that we have entered a new era, that will slowly but surely move the shoreline inward century after century. It is too late to stop, but what we do now will slow or speed up the devastating effects. My presentations over the last three months show high levels of effectiveness. I have been told I stumbled on the pathway to get past our primitive reptilean brain, which acts as the gatekeeper to our sophisticated human neocortex. The trick is to get their attention with something important -- like a moving shoreline -- that does not scare them to panic, but gives them a way out, delivered in a calm voice. It works.
-
DSL at 00:53 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard (non-entity), this has been hashed out over at SoD ad nauseum.
If you are suggesting that DLR does not result in ocean warming, could you provide a mechanism that does account for the current warming trend of both oceans and lakes in the absence of a TSI trend strong enough to account for such warming? If DLR does not provide the at-skin thermal barrier theorized, then at night shallow lakes (<6m) should lose most of their daytime heat and become much colder than the local 10m trop temp, even on very warm nights. Does this occur?Help advance the science, by all means.
-
Composer99 at 00:34 AM on 6 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Rob Painting:
Assuming that you are referring to a debunking of Richard C's leading questions, those of us who've not seen his particular claims before would appreciate a link, especially if it involves cites & technical stuff (although there is always your article here on SkS). :)
However, for the layman (like me), I suspect the argument Richard C is making (but appears to conceal in questions) falls on one or more of three points:
(1) Richard C has made a definitional error with regards to heat/energy whereby what he is talking about is not what the people he attempts to rebut are talking about.
(2) First Law of Thermodynamics. The extra energy accumulating in the oceans has to come from somewhere - and the only explanation which adds up (har!) is the energy accumulating in the Earth system due to the GHG-caused radiative imbalance at top-of-atmosphere.
(3) Bass ackwardness. Richard C states in his question #1:
If say, 40 yr heat accumulation in the ocean (18x10^22 J approx) is not solar-sourced, but energy sourced from the atmosphere (low specific heat) from GHG energy entrapment and moved to the ocean (high specific heat) against the predominant thermal gradient [...]
As far as I am aware, the effect of increasing atmospheric greenhouse gases - even on the oceans - is that it slows down energy transfer out of the system. They don't warm because something else is adding extra energy. They warm because the extra energy can't escape as easily as before.
-
DSL at 00:03 AM on 6 February 2013Climate science peer review is pal review
MartinG, you did read the article, yes? Do you accept what de Freitas did? The Wegman affair is another example--perhaps the richest in irony. When we say "pal review," we don't mean getting one's friends to check one's math. We mean getting one's friends to pass one's work through the peer-review process with just a glance.
-
Daniel Bailey at 23:59 PM on 5 February 2013Glaciers still shrinking in 2011, how have contrarians claimed the opposite?
"we have delayed the onset of the next glacial by who knows how much"
Scientists have looked into that. Per Tzedakis et al 2012:
“glacial inception would require CO2 concentrations below preindustrial levels of 280 ppmv”
For reference, we are at about ~394 right now…and climbing, so we can be relatively sure the next glacial epoch won't be happening in our lifetimes.
• http://junksciencecom.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/nature-geoscience-ice-age.pdf
But what about further down the road? What happens then? Per Dr Toby Tyrrell (Tyrrell 2007) of the University of Southampton's School of Ocean and Earth Science at the National Oceanography Centre, Southampton:"Our research shows why atmospheric CO2 will not return to pre-industrial levels after we stop burning fossil fuels. It shows that it if we use up all known fossil fuels it doesn't matter at what rate we burn them.
The result would be the same if we burned them at present rates or at more moderate rates; we would still get the same eventual ice-age-prevention result."and
"Burning all recoverable fossil fuels could lead to avoidance of the next five ice ages."
So no ice ages and no Arctic sea ice recovery the next million years...
• http://plankt.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/2/141.full.pdf+html
Also covered by Stoat, here:
• http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/11/09/carbon-dioxide-our-salvation-from-a-future-ice-age/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
Given the radiative imbalance at the TOA is still present and that CO2 levels are still increasing (and that human emissions are not ending anytime soon), it is reasonable to presume that the impacts of a warming planet will increasingly impact the most vulnerable aspects of our remaining cryosphere: the Arctic sea ice (a goner), the Greenland Ice Sheet and the West Antarctic Ice Sheet.
We are, through our own actions, effectively locking-in a world of another 8-12 meters SLR above present. Unless we can magically arrest our emissions and also initiate methods to draw-down atmospheric concentrations of CO2. -
Tom Curtis at 21:50 PM on 5 February 2013Climate science peer review is pal review
MartinG @1, in the early days of science, anyone recognized as able to contribute could ask to present a paper to a learned society, and would do so. Their paper would then be published in the societies proceedings. This system worked because there were so few scientists that, even with this all comers approach, any interested person could read all the new papers in a given year, at least for a given country. As the number of scientists grew, the system broke down and peer review was introduced. The need that peer review satisfied, and hence its purpose, was to restrict publication so far as was possible to those papers that were worth reading. Above all else, peer review is a mechanism to ensure that scientists are able to devote their attention to papers of merit. It is a mechanism for filtering out scientific spam.
A paper can have merit without being correct, or indeed, without being free from error. But it must be free from obvious error. Further, a paper can be without error and correct, and lack merit; either because the subject has been covered many time before and the paper adds nothing new, or because the question addressed by the paper is simply of no scientific interest.
The problem with pal review is that it subverts the system as a filter of scientific spam. Your pals may do you a favour in getting your publications up even though they think the paper is without merit. More troubling, if they are politically (or has happened, religiously motivated) they may conspire to ensure the publication of your paper because it says the right things, from their perspective, and without regard to the actual scientific merit of the paper. Certainly some creationist papers have been published by this means, and the evidence is fairly clear that papers that would not otherwise have been published, have been published by pal review simply on the basis that they are critical of the concensus.
IMO, that AGW deniers have so conspired is a tacit admission that their work lacks merit. Had they been confident of their works merit, they would have spurned pal review in favour of the genuine article. But they appear to have decided it was more important politically to have the various papers in press than that they should be good enough to go through the normal rigours of peer review. (Please note, there are some skeptical papers that have gone through normal peer review. Those papers deserve the same respect that any other paper that goes through peer review deserves.)
-
MartinG at 20:05 PM on 5 February 2013Climate science peer review is pal review
I think this is somewhat misleading. We dont use Peer Review in science to prove that what we write is correct. No peer reviewer can do that. No - what peer review is for is to ensure that the conclusions given in the paper are properly supported by the evidence presented. A peer reviewer cannot be expected to go behind the scenes to check from the raw data. ( I myself have published papers with errors which a peer review process did not detect). The point of publishing is to air your views and allow others, who may have different conclusions to refute your work. This is what scientific debate is all about. By polarizing peer review using words such as "pal review" we are missing the point. I see no problem in a "pal review" - thats just asking your friends to check your paper and ensure its based on sound logic. Let them publish thier stuff - and then others (opponents) can publish why they are mistaken. Lets keep the debate where it belongs - on the technical issues.
-
Rob Painting at 20:03 PM on 5 February 2013Dueling Scientists in The Oregonian, Settled by Nuccitelli et al. (2012)
Richard - we have been over this many times before on other blogs. I find it hard to believe you are suffering from anterograde amnesia.
-
Kevin C at 20:03 PM on 5 February 2013No warming in 16 years
Yes, it seems probably that the aerosol cooling effect has been increasing. Unfortunately the effect is geographically dependent and not well measured.
The point of the video is that at this point I don't think we can detect that effect in the instrumental temperature record with any confidence. (There's an update coming which will show a small change, but still in the noise range.)
Prev 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 Next
